EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHO-AESTHETICS:
BRINGING ART INTO THE LAB AND
SCIENCE INTO THE MUSEUM
JOHAN WAGEMANS
LIPS, LEUVEN, 19 FEB 2010
Preliminary notes
•
•
•
•
LEP, visual perception, arts?
Methusalem, Parallellepipeda
audience
multi-layered lecture on experimental
psycho-aesthetics:
– main part: experimental psycho-aesthetics as
a discipline
– shell around it: implications for psychology as
a whole
– deep inside: “the story of my life”
Contents
1. (historical) introduction to experimental
psycho-aesthetics
2. variety of research topics and research
styles
3. implications for psychology as a whole
4. some Parallellepipeda projects
5. towards a new kind of experimental
psycho-aesthetics?
1.
(HISTORICAL) INTRODUCTION TO
EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHO-AESTHETICS
Experimental psycho-aesthetics
• “aesthetics”
– originally: ability to receive stimulation from one
or more of the five bodily senses
– since Alexander Gottlieb BAUMGARTEN (17141762): taste or sense of beauty based on feelings
of pleasure or displeasure (as opposed to
judgment based on the intellect)
• “experimental psycho-aesthetics”
– scientific discipline devoted to the understanding
of the factors that determine aesthetic
appreciation
– origin: “Vorschule der Aesthetik” (1876) by
Gustav Theodor FECHNER (1801-1887)
Gustav Theodor Fechner
° 19/04/1801
† 28/11/1887
• 1834: prof physics
(Leipzig)
• 1839: eye disease
(in studying color
afterimages)
Gustav Theodor Fechner
• “strange guy”
– chemical and physical papers
– poems and humorous texts (pen-name “Dr.
Mises”)
• “Vergleichende Anatomie der Engel” (1825)
– mysticus and metaphysicus
• “Das Büchlein vom Leben nach dem Tod” (1836)
• “Zendavesta, oder über die Dinge des Himmels und
des Jenseits” (1851)
Gustav Theodor Fechner
• panpsychism
– everything in nature has a soul (“beseelt”)
– “Nanna, oder über das Seelenleben der
Pflanzen” (1848)
• monism
– he rejects the Cartesian dualism of mind and
body
– he defends a monistic view on the relation
between the physical and the mental as two
aspects of the same (identity)
Gustav Theodor Fechner
• he wants to map the functional relation
between the physical and the mental and
thus develops psychophysics, the exact
science of the functional relation between
the body and the mind
• “Elemente der Psychophysik” (1860):
– start of psychophysics
– milestone in the development of psychology
as a science
“Elemente der Psychophysik”
• two volumes:
– “outer psychophysics”: the relation between
the intensity of the physical stimuli (R for
“Reiz”) and the intensity of the sensation (S)
– “inner psychophysics”: the relation between
the intensity of the neural excitation (E) and
the intensity of the sensation (S)
R
E
S
Weber-Fechner law
• psychophysical measurement requires a
starting point and a measurement unit
• Fechner realized that the absolute
threshold (RL) could be used to
determine the starting point and the JND
to determine a measurement unit
• this way he derived from Weber’s law
(k = ΔR/R) the so-called Weber-Fechner
law:
S = k log R
Importance of psychophysics
• scientific basis of psychology
– S-O-R
– mind-brain problem
• S.S. Stevens (1951, p. 1): “When
description gives way to measurement,
calculation replaces debate”
• also relevant for psycho-aesthetics
Experimental psycho-aesthetics
• centuries of philosophical speculations about
principles determining aesthetic appreciation
 “De gustibus non est disputandum”
• Fechner
– proposes formal laws of beauty that can be tested
experimentally
• beauty caused by perfection, realized in right
proportions, harmonious arrangement of parts
• also elements of imperfection
• Leibniz: perfection = harmony = unity within variety
• Birkhoff (1932): M = O / C (aesthetic measure defined
by ratio of order and complexity)
• Eysenck (1942): M = O x C
The Golden Section
• B/A = A/(A+B) ≈ 0.618
• A/B = (A+B)/A ≈ 1.618
The Golden Section
• B/A = A/(A+B) ≈ 0.618
• A/B = (A+B)/A ≈ 1.618
• golden rectangle
The Golden Section
• B/A = A/(A+B) ≈ 0.618
• A/B = (A+B)/A ≈ 1.618
• golden rectangle
• Parthenon by Phidias (480 BC – 430 BC)
The Golden Section
•
•
•
•
B/A = A/(A+B) ≈ 0.618
A/B = (A+B)/A ≈ 1.618
golden rectangle
Parthenon by Phidias (480 BC – 430 BC)
• “Modulor” by Le Corbusier
The Golden Section
•
•
•
•
•
B/A = A/(A+B) ≈ 0.618
A/B = (A+B)/A ≈ 1.618
golden rectangle
Parthenon by Phidias (480 BC – 430 BC)
“Modulor” by Le Corbusier
• research by Fechner (1865): small average
preference for rectangle of 21 x 34 cm but
large interindividual differences
• research by Boselie (1992) with Mondriaan
paintings
Berlyne, D. E. (1970). The golden section and
hedonic judgments of rectangles: A cross-cultural
study. Sciences de l'art/Scientific Aesthetics, 7, 16.
Some references
Fechner, G. T. (1865). Über die Frage des golden Schnitts. Archiv für die zeichnenden
Künste, 11, 100-112.
Bouleau, C. (1980). The painter's secret geometry, A study of composition in art. New
York: Harcourt, Brace, and World. (Original work published 1963)
McManus, I. C. (1980). The aesthetics of simple figures. British Journal of Psychology,
71, 505-524.
Boselie, F. (1984a). Complex and simple proportions and the aesthetic attractivity of
visual patterns. Perception, 13, 91-96.
Boselie, F. (1984b). The aesthetic attractivity of the golden section. Psychological
Research, 45, 367-375.
Boselie, F. (1992). The golden section has no special aesthetic attractivity! Empirical
Studies of the Arts, 10, 1-18.
Green, C. D. (1995). All that glitters: A review of psychological research on the
aesthetics of the golden section. Perception, 24, 937-968.
2.
VARIETY OF RESEARCH TOPICS AND
RESEARCH STYLES
Different dimensions
• Nature vs nurture
• Focus on object side
• Focus on subject side
• Maximizing experimental control (using
simple stimuli)
• Maximizing ecological validity (using real
artworks)
Nature vs nurture (1)
• Jay Appleton (1975) “The experience of
landscape”
– rooted in Darwin’s ideas of successful
adaptation
– preference for landscapes explained by
prospect-refuge theory
• direct vs indirect prospects (panoramas, vistas)
• natural vs man-made refuges (shelters, hides)
Landscape with Banditti round a tent (1752) by Richard Wilson
Elements of refuge and of direct and indirect prospects.
Nature vs nurture (1)
• Jay Appleton (1975) “The experience of
landscape”
– rooted in Darwin’s ideas of successful adaptation
– preference for landscapes explained by prospectrefuge theory
• direct vs indirect prospects (panoramas, vistas)
• natural vs man-made refuges (shelters, hides)
– innate categories but learning processes needed
for interpretation and communication
– research: preference for landscapes more complex
• fashions evolve
• currently: mixture between natural and designed
Nature vs nurture (2)
• Daniel Berlyne (1971) “Aesthetics and
psychobiology”
– exploratory behavior and curiosity
– optimal stimulation level
– aesthetic preference (and hedonic value)
determined by average arousal potential
Berlyne’s arousal potential theory of aesthetics
Can be applied to explain wide range of appreciation phenomena.
Nature vs nurture (2)
• Daniel Berlyne (1971) “Aesthetics and
psychobiology”
– exploratory behavior and curiosity
– optimal stimulation level
– aesthetic preference (and hedonic value)
determined by average arousal potential
– not too simple, not too complex
Berlyne’s arousal potential theory of aesthetics
Can be applied to explain wide range of appreciation phenomena.
Nature vs nurture (2)
• Daniel Berlyne (1971) “Aesthetics and
psychobiology”
– exploratory behavior and curiosity
– optimal stimulation level
– aesthetic preference (and hedonic value)
determined by average arousal potential
– not too simple, not too complex
– moderately familiar
Berlyne’s arousal potential theory of aesthetics
Can be applied to explain wide range of appreciation phenomena.
Can be transformed into long-term dynamics of preferences.
Nature vs nurture (2)
• Daniel Berlyne (1971) “Aesthetics and
psychobiology”
– exploratory behavior and curiosity
– optimal stimulation level
– aesthetic preference (and hedonic value)
determined by average arousal potential
– not too simple, not too complex
– moderately familiar
• in contrast to mere exposure effect
• underlying cyclic fashion trends
• MAYA principle in design (“most advanced yet
acceptable”)
Nature vs nurture (3)
• Cognitive “arousal”: discrepancy with
schemata in memory
– assimilation vs accommodation
– preference for music
– preference for houses
• novices:
– more prototypical = more attractive (less interesting)
– less prototypical = more interesting (less attractive)
• experts:
– less prototypical = more interesting = more attractive
Focus on object vs subject side
• object characteristics
– structural aspects like composition and
balance
– semantic aspects (symbols)
• subject characteristics
– in general: very large interindividual
differences (but also some consistent crosscultural universals, e.g., symmetry, curved vs
angular shapes)
– gender, age, expertise effects
Rudolf Arnheim (1904-2007)
1954/1974: Art and
Visual Perception: A
Psychology of the
Creative Eye. Berkeley:
University of California
Press.
1969: Visual Thinking.
Berkeley: University of
California Press.
1982/1988: The Power
of the Center: A Study
of Composition in the
Visual Arts. Berkeley:
University of California
Press.
Experimental control vs ecological validity
• maximizing experimental control: very
simple, artificial stimuli (rectangles,
geometric shapes, polygons)
• maximizing ecological validity: very rich
stimuli (real art works)
• examples of research on this continuum
– one extreme: polygons
– other extreme: Leyton’s process theory linking
perception to art
– intermediate cases
Leyton (1992)
“Symmetry, causality, mind”
• shape perception = reconstruction of its causal
history
– causal explanation of shape by undoing asymmetries
Leyton (1992)
“Symmetry, causality, mind”
• shape perception = reconstruction of its causal
history
– causal explanation of shape by undoing asymmetries
– seeing processes in static pictures
• aesthetic response = evaluation of causal
explanation (as solution to a problem)
Example-analysis
“Les Demoiselles d’Avignon” (1907)
Pablo Picasso
Process 1: “Stretching”
Process 2: “Overcoming rigidity”
Process 3: “Overcoming resistance”
Process 4: “Pulling open”
Process 5: “Branching out”
Process 6: “Tearing apart”
Leyton (1992)
“Symmetry, causality, mind”
• shape perception = reconstruction of its causal
history
• aesthetic response = evaluation of causal
explanation (as solution to a problem)
• interesting but
– pure speculation, no empirical evidence
– rather arbitary
• alternative approaches in-between two
extremes?
Intermediate case (1)
•
•
•
Locher, P., Gray, S., & Nodine, C. (1996). The structural framework of
pictorial balance. Perception, 25, 1419–1436.
Locher, P., Stappers, P., & Overbeeke, K. (1999). The role of balance
as an organizing principle underlying adults’ compositional strategies
for creating visual displays. Acta Psychologica, 99, 141–161.
Locher, P. (2003). An empirical investigation of the visual rightness
theory of picture perception. Acta Psychologica, 114, 147–164.
• “visual rightness” theory: organisational
structure of a “visually good” composition
•
•
•
•
is visually salient
appreciated more than another version
tested with 16 existing paintings
in 4 experiments
A = abstract
SA = semi-abstract
SR = semirepresentational
R = representational
L = linearly
P = painterly
“The golden wall”
Hofmann
“The daughters of Edward Darley bois”
Sargent
O = original
A = adjusted
Experiments 1-2
• Experiment 1
– naïve subjects (50 psychology-students)
– preference for original: 55%
– “goodness rating”
• general = +0.37
• representational = +0.54
• abstract = +0.19
• Experiment 2
– expert subjects (12 art-teachers)
– preference for original: 64%
– “goodness rating”
• general = +0.83
• representational = +0.73
• abstract = +0.92
Experiments 3-4
• Experiment 3
– in-between subjects (187 design-students)
– placing free element
Experiments 3-4
• Experiment 4
– naïve subjects (100 psychology-students)
– choice between 3 versions:
• original
• slightly perturbed (1)
• strongly perturbed (2)
Intermediate case (1)
• “visual rightness” theory:
– testable but not obvious
– receives some empirical support but not very
strong
Intermediate case (2)
•
Augustin, M. D., Leder, H., Hutzler, F., & Carbon, C. C. (2008).
Style follows content: On the microgenesis of art perception.
Acta Psychologica, 128, 127-138.
• Question
–
how does the processing of style and content develop in real time
and how are the two sub-processes interrelated?
• Experimental ideas
– systematic variation of style and content
– systematic variation of presentation times (PTs)
– task should allow to assess style-related processing irrespectively of
expertise (art-related vocabulary)
• Method
– Participants: no special background in art or art history (3 groups of
24 persons)
– Stimuli: 192 pairs of pictures according to the 2 x 2 factors
• style (same style / different style)
• content (same content / different content)
Materials:
systematic variation
of style and content:
- artist x motiv
- 48 pictures
Content
Van Gogh
Kirchner
Style
Chagall
Cézanne
Tree/trees
House
Flower
Male person
The 2 x 2 conditions of the stimulus material
different
Style
same
same
Content
different
Methods
Procedure
• PTs: 10, 50 ms, 202, 3000 ms
• dependent variable: similarity (scale 1 to 7)
• trial scheme:
fixation
blank
stimuli & judgment
blank
mask
80 ms
200 ms
Wie ähnlich sind die beiden Bilder?
+
sehr unähnlich 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 – 6 – 7 sehr ähnlich
150 ms
150 ms
10, 50, 202, 3000 ms
Results
- Effects of content: significant at all PTs (already at 10 ms)
- Effects of style: increases with PT (from 50 ms onwards)
- Processing of style starts later and develops more slowly than processing of content
- Non-experts exhibit processing of style on the basis of very early information
Intermediate case (2)
• microgenesis of art perception:
– possible
– connects art perception to other visual
perception
– starting point for more work along these lines
3.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PSYCHOLOGY AS A
WHOLE
Psycho-aesthetics as a prime example
of psychology as a whole
• everything comes together here:
– internal, private experience
• mind/brain problem
• difficult to access
– perception/cognition/emotion interplay
– determined by many different factors
– some general principles but large degree of
interindividual variability
– challenge to investigate properly
• tension between experimental control and ecological
validity
• aesthetic “response” (questionnaire, psychophysiology,
“thrills”)
• dilemma: what is interesting, is hard to study (and vice
versa)
Hopeless?
• No, face the challenge …
• … try something new